Literature Review
Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines19,20, the literatures search, screening, and data extraction process are illustrated in Fig. 1. Potentially relevant publications were identified through systematic searches using the keywords “Tick* AND (Europe OR Asia OR country name) AND (Borreliosis OR “Borrelia burgdorferi”) AND (Abundance OR Prevalence)” in English databases (Web of Science, PubMed) and “伯氏疏螺旋体” in Chinese databases (CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP). The publication period was restricted to 2000–2023. No language restrictions were applied to the search.
Literature search, screening, and data extraction process.
A total of 6141 publications were retrieved for screening, comprising 2516 from Web of Science, 2252 from PubMed, 477 from CNKI, 512 from Wanfang, and 384 from VIP databases. Duplicate publications were excluded during initial screening. During title and abstract review, we excluded non-research publications (reviews, editorials, books) and studies clearly unrelated to B. burgdorferi s.l.. In the full-text review stage, we excluded studies focusing on B. burgdorferi s.l. prevalence in hosts rather than ticks, laboratory studies without field data, method evaluation studies, infection efficiency trials, studies using preserved strains, publications with insufficient geographical information, and records with incomplete prevalence data. This resulted in 441 English and 81 Chinese publications meeting the extraction criteria.
Data collection
Key information extracted from the literature included: (1) tick occurrence location (and geographical scale), (2) the genera and species of ticks, (3) tick life and behavioral stages, (4) tick collection time and methods, and (5) prevalence of B. burgdorferi s.l.. A single publication often reported multiple tick species and their prevalence across different locations, which were recorded separately. Thus, each record in our dataset represents pathogen prevalence for a specific tick species reported by authors at a particular location.
Geographical positioning
The dataset includes the specific descriptions of locations provided in the literature. A hierarchical spatial scale approach was applied to classify locations by spatial resolution, with five levels established: country, and first-, second-, third-, and fourth-level administrative divisions. These administrative divisions at all levels were retrieved from GeoNames (https://download.geonames.org/), ensuring consistency in spatial classification standards. Each data record is precise to the smallest administrative division encompassing the sampling site or area.
For coordinate data, we applied a systematic approach based on the specificity of location information provided in the original publications. Sampling points with explicit coordinates were directly extracted from the texts, tables, figures, and supplementary materials. For locations lacking explicit coordinates but with clear and specific sampling point descriptions, accurate latitude and longitude were determined using the georeferencing function of Google Maps21,22, where relevant keywords for each record’s location—such as specific geographical features—were searched to obtain precise coordinates. For large sampling areas, ambiguous location descriptions, we used the center coordinates of the smallest administrative unit encompassing the sampling area to ensure consistent spatial representation.
